Re: Giving developers clue how many testers verified certain kernel version

Alejandro Bonilla
2005-07-23T03:38:24Z

Lee Revell wrote:

>On Fri, 2005-07-22 at 21:15 -0500, Alejandro Bonilla wrote:
>
>
>>OK, I will, but I first of all need to learn how to tell if benchmarks
>>are better or worse.
>>
>>
>
>Con's interactivity benchmark looks quite promising for finding
>scheduler related interactivity regressions. It certainly has confirmed
>what we already knew re: SCHED_FIFO performance, if we extend that to
>SCHED_OTHER which is a more interesting problem then there's serious
>potential for improvement. AFAIK no one has posted any 2.4 vs 2.6
>interbench results yet...
>
>
I will give it a try.

>I suspect a lot of the boot time issue is due to userspace. But, it
>should be trivial to benchmark this one, just use the TSC or whatever to
>measure the time from first kernel entry to execing init().
>
>
You got it! As a laptop user, I think it just takes too much more. I
think it is maybe hotplugs fault with the kernel? I don't know how much
is done by the kernel or userspace but it definitely takes longer.

I could do some sort of benchmarks, but believe me, I hate to say this,
but I use 2.6 because of much more power managements features in it.
Else I like 2.4 a lot more. Is like, the feels is sharper. Sometimes
when I got into a tty1, it takes some time after I put my username in to
prompt me for a password. This does not occur when I boot with 2.4.27.
Strange huh?

I don't want to be an ass and say that 2.4 is better, instead I want to
help and let determine why is it that I feel 2.6 slower.

.Alejandro

>Lee
>
>
>
>